Defense Department and federal government continue to cut energy use

During the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the 3rd Brigade of the 3rd Infantry Division was tasked with racing through the Western desert in the first three days to open up a western flank just outside Baghdad.

In putting together the plan, strategists quickly figured out that the limiting factor was not the speed of the M1A1 tanks or the Bradley fighting vehicles, but the tanker trucks carrying the fuel.

In Afghanistan, forward operating bases that came under continual attack had a major Achilles' heel: The communications equipment relied on diesel-fueled generators.

And even here in the United States, military planners noticed that most bases relied on the civilian electricity grid for power and could not operate for long on diesel generators if the power were cut in a terrorist attack.

These are some of the reasons the Department of Defense is consuming less energy every year, according to data released by the Energy Information Administration. The DOD has dropped from using 1.36 quadrillion British thermal units in 1975 to only .75 quadrillion units in 2013. DOD's share of total federal government energy usage has dropped from 87 percent to 78 percent.

The most effective means of ending reliance on fossil fuels, though, is to use less through more energy-efficient equipment and eliminating waste.

The military's experience can serve as an example for the civilian world. DOD is deploying an all-of-the-above strategy while making a point to never sacrifice the mission. No one is suggesting that Lockheed Martin build a solar-powered battle tank, but if a destroyer can operate with biofuel, then why not? Soldiers in battle need communications gear, but why not use solar power and batteries as a more reliable power source than a diesel generator?

Rather than question the politics or ideology of those who support a technology, more of us should think about what energy sources make the most sense for specific circumstances. Those who are defending our country certainly are.

Chris Tomlinson has written commentary on business, energy and economics for the Houston Chronicle since 2014. Before joining the Chronicle, he spent 20 years with The Associated Press reporting on politics, conflicts and economics from more than 30 countries in Africa, the Middle East and Europe. He’s also the author of the New York Times bestseller Tomlinson Hill, and he produced the award-winning documentary film by the same name. Both examine the history and consequences of race, politics and economics in Texas.